"Fred" wrote in message
...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
"Fred" wrote in :

Ok, this is way weird. I just was going to replace a toilet flapper. I
went to turn the shut off valve, and got zapped, big time!

Quit posting on Usenet, and call an electrician NOW before someone gets a
fatal shock.

Like I told you in my response to your first post, you have a fault in
your electrical system that is
energizing your water pipes -- *and* the pipes are not properly grounded.

You NEED an electrician, and you need one YESTERDAY. This is potentially
DEADLY.

I got a call in to an electrician, they will be out Wednesday. Now you're
making me nervous if I should even use the shower tonight or not.


As I said before call power company the problem is not inside your house it
is before your watt meter now you will pay for electrician and possible
may need to get power company anywhere.
Possible power reversal neutral became hot and hot became neutral,
which I had on several places on industrial equipment but not on house.

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 12:09:21 PM UTC-4, Tony944 wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message

...



"Doug Miller" wrote in message

...

"Fred" wrote in :



Ok, this is way weird. I just was going to replace a toilet flapper. I

went to turn the shut off valve, and got zapped, big time!



Quit posting on Usenet, and call an electrician NOW before someone gets a

fatal shock.



Like I told you in my response to your first post, you have a fault in

your electrical system that is

energizing your water pipes -- *and* the pipes are not properly grounded.



You NEED an electrician, and you need one YESTERDAY. This is potentially

DEADLY.



I got a call in to an electrician, they will be out Wednesday. Now you're

making me nervous if I should even use the shower tonight or not.





As I said before call power company the problem is not inside your house it

is before your watt meter now you will pay for electrician and possible

may need to get power company anywhere.

How can you possibly tell that the problem is before the meter?
It seems almost a certainty that something is very wrong in
the house, because the water system should be bonded/grounded to the
electrical system at the panel.





Possible power reversal neutral became hot and hot became neutral,

which I had on several places on industrial equipment but not on house.

With the neutral properly grounded at the panel, what do
you think would happen if you reversed hot and neutral
outside the house?

Ralph Mowery wrote:

You can also get the voltage test sticks that are battery powered and
they will light up /sound off on a hot wire.
They do not require any ground or even a direct contact with the
circuit as they are fully insulated.

Interesting idea. I wonder if that would work if the voltage being detected
is low. I did this Google search:
https://www.google.com/#q=voltage+tester+pen and a lot of the results say
the pen works from 90VAC and up.

On 10-29-2013, 10:29, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Wes Groleau" wrote in message
On 10-28-2013, 19:19, wrote:
The EASIEST way to test for a live chassis, or a live wire, is a neon
tester. It will light with only a "capacitive ground" and draws so
little current it is impossible to get a shock from.

That's easier if you know what you are doing. It requires contact with
the point being tested AND with a ground of some sort. Not everything
that is metal or looks like it is even a capacitive ground.

And, unless you understand how the light works, you don't know which side
is hot.

Often the simple neon bulb testers do not need a ground to tell which side
is the hot one. Just hold one of the leads in your hand and put the other
one to the circuit. Most often it will light up evenif you are not
grounded. ....

Ah, then those are functioning similar to the ones mentioned below. All
the ones I've ever had required a potential across two leads

You can also get the voltage test sticks that are battery powered and they
will light up /sound off on a hot wire.
They do not require any ground or even a direct contact with the circuit as
they are fully insulated.

These are the ones I referred to. But the ones I've seen have to be
adjusted for sensitivity. Do it wrong and there's voltage everywhere or
nowhere.

One that requires no adjustment to give a reliable reading without a
ground would be great. (But still no substitute for someone who
actually understands electricity.)

--
Wes Groleau

€œA miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a
firm and unalterable experience has established these laws,
the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact,
is as entire as could possibly be imagined.€�
€” David Hume, age 37
€œThere's no such thing of that, 'cause I never heard of it.€�
€” Becky Groleau, age 4

On 10/29/2013 1:02 PM, TomR wrote:
Interesting idea. I wonder if that would work if the voltage being detected
is low. I did this Google search:
https://www.google.com/#q=voltage+tester+pen and a lot of the results say
the pen works from 90VAC and up.

I used the round HF voltage detector last week.
Diagnosing a furnace that was not running. Turns
out I was detecting 24 VAC control circuit wires.
Surprised me, I was able to beep them out.
http://www.harborfreight.com/non-con...ter-97218.html


--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 10-29-2013, 08:20, wrote:
to a water pipe. Not code means that you couldn't do that today,
when in fact code says you can. Good grief.

"not code" means whatever he was thinking when he wrote it.
He doesn't speak our dialect. Get over it.

--
Wes Groleau

You always have time for what you do first.

On 10-29-2013, 09:30, bud-- wrote:
On 10/28/2013 9:24 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-28-2013, 23:01, bud-- wrote:

"No longer code" is "wrong".

Other posts made it clear he meant not required by code.
Don't crucify him for failure to edit extensively.
That would violate Usenet tradition.

"Not required by code" is "wrong".

You're probably write. So refute what he meant, not what he didn't.


--
Wes Groleau

After the christening of his baby brother in church, Jason sobbed
all the way home in the back seat of the car. His father asked him
three times what was wrong. Finally, the boy replied, €œThat preacher
said he wanted us brought up in a Christian home, and I wanted to
stay with you guys."

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:55:47 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-29-2013, 08:20, wrote:

to a water pipe. Not code means that you couldn't do that today,

when in fact code says you can. Good grief.



"not code" means whatever he was thinking when he wrote it.

Is that like arguing about what the meaning of "is", "is"?
First, he didn't say "not code". He said it's
"no longer code". The only reasonable in context interpretation
of that is that it means you can't have a ground wire
going to a water pipe because the code has been updated
to disallow it. If you follow the thread, he even made
that clear

"At least Philo knew I was specifically talking about ground wire connections
made to water pipes at random places in the house. That's very clear to
anyone but a raging flamer like you. Is that still code in NJ? I doubt it.
They stopped approving such grounding methods *precisely* because of what's
happened in Fred's case. "

(note with regard to the above, that he specifically listed the
panel in his list of places to look for grounds to water pipes
that are "no longer code", then he tried to change it to random
places)

"It's clear why grounding to water pipes isn't the great idea it used to be
even though in many old houses (like mine) you'll still find plenty of
clamps attached to supply lines. The mains could be PVC, repairs in the
house, even if it has copper plumbing could be plastic, etc. "

For the record, it's not only permissible to ground the panel
to the incoming water service, ie it's one of the listed
grounding electrodes, it's such a great idea, it's required. And the
metal water pipe system of the house has to be bonded/grounded to
the panel as well. You tried to claim he meant it's just
*not required*, so you obviously don't know what you're talking
about either, because that is still equally as wrong. There
will be ground wires running from the panel to metal water
pipes in new construction, following current code, today.



He doesn't speak our dialect. Get over it.



Why don't you get over the fact that he's wrong and
stop making excuses for him And it's not
an issue of speaking the dialect. "No longer code" is
clear... Even if it wasn't clear,
you think someone who can't speak the dialect is
qualified to give advice to someone on what is or
isn't a proper ground, current code, etc?
Good grief.

On 10/29/2013 01:12 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 10/29/2013 1:02 PM, TomR wrote:
Interesting idea. I wonder if that would work if the voltage being
detected
is low. I did this Google search:
https://www.google.com/#q=voltage+tester+pen and a lot of the results say
the pen works from 90VAC and up.

I used the round HF voltage detector last week.
Diagnosing a furnace that was not running. Turns
out I was detecting 24 VAC control circuit wires.
Surprised me, I was able to beep them out.
http://www.harborfreight.com/non-con...ter-97218.html



I went through this a while ago when my non-contact voltage detector
fried, and I did post about it. The one that I had was an Amprobe and
I'd used it (only on 120/208 but still) for a year or so and was happy
with it. When I replaced the batteries with NiMH it ate itself; don't
know if it was related or coincidence. I bought a Fluke one because
that was the other brand that my local supply house sold - I hated it,
not sensitive enough. Mail ordered a Sperry VD6505 ($15 and free
shipping!) and love it. Adjustable sensitivity means that I can
discriminate *which* wire is hot if I want to, or dial it up and make
sure *everything* in a box is dead before I start disconnecting wires.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 2:23:31 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:55:47 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 10-29-2013, 08:20, wrote:



to a water pipe. Not code means that you couldn't do that today,



when in fact code says you can. Good grief.







"not code" means whatever he was thinking when he wrote it.



Is that like arguing about what the meaning of "is", "is"?

First, he didn't say "not code". He said it's

"no longer code". The only reasonable in context interpretation

of that is that it means you can't have a ground wire

going to a water pipe because the code has been updated

to disallow it.

Let me correct the above to say "code had been updated to disallow
it for new work. I think that's the most reasonable and
generous interpretation of what he said. It's what every other
person I can ever recall saying something is no longer code
meant.




If you follow the thread, he even made

that clear



"At least Philo knew I was specifically talking about ground wire connections

made to water pipes at random places in the house. That's very clear to

anyone but a raging flamer like you. Is that still code in NJ? I doubt it.

They stopped approving such grounding methods *precisely* because of what's

happened in Fred's case. "



(note with regard to the above, that he specifically listed the

panel in his list of places to look for grounds to water pipes

that are "no longer code", then he tried to change it to random

places)



"It's clear why grounding to water pipes isn't the great idea it used to be

even though in many old houses (like mine) you'll still find plenty of

clamps attached to supply lines. The mains could be PVC, repairs in the

house, even if it has copper plumbing could be plastic, etc. "



For the record, it's not only permissible to ground the panel

to the incoming water service, ie it's one of the listed

grounding electrodes, it's such a great idea, it's required. And the

metal water pipe system of the house has to be bonded/grounded to

the panel as well. You tried to claim he meant it's just

*not required*, so you obviously don't know what you're talking

about either, because that is still equally as wrong. There

will be ground wires running from the panel to metal water

pipes in new construction, following current code, today.







He doesn't speak our dialect. Get over it.







Why don't you get over the fact that he's wrong and

stop making excuses for him And it's not

an issue of speaking the dialect. "No longer code" is

clear... Even if it wasn't clear,

you think someone who can't speak the dialect is

qualified to give advice to someone on what is or

isn't a proper ground, current code, etc?

Good grief.

On 10-29-2013, 16:05, bud-- wrote:
On 10/29/2013 11:58 AM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-29-2013, 09:30, bud-- wrote:
On 10/28/2013 9:24 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-28-2013, 23:01, bud-- wrote:

"No longer code" is "wrong".

Other posts made it clear he meant not required by code.
Don't crucify him for failure to edit extensively.
That would violate Usenet tradition.

"Not required by code" is "wrong".

You're probably write. So refute what he meant, not what he didn't.

Find me the original quote. Doesn't appear to be in-line back.

He posted (without the quote marks) "(not code)" which is very
ambiguous. Since then, even though he has more clearly explained what
he meant (which you say is wrong), numerous posts have killed the horse
about him allegedly saying prohibited.

In other words, we're proudly maintaining Usenet tradition.

--
Wes Groleau

Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, and cut with an axe.

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:07:01 PM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
On 10/29/2013 11:58 AM, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 10-29-2013, 09:30, bud-- wrote:

On 10/28/2013 9:24 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 10-28-2013, 23:01, bud-- wrote:



"No longer code" is "wrong".



Other posts made it clear he meant not required by code.

Don't crucify him for failure to edit extensively.

That would violate Usenet tradition.



"Not required by code" is "wrong".



You're probably write. So refute what he meant, not what he didn't.



Find me the original quote. Doesn't appear to be in-line back.



Here it is:

"
If you want to do something before help arrives, I might *look* (but not
touch) for any clamps with wires that are attached to your water supply
lines. Incoming phone terminals, CATV lines, the circuit box area and the
furnace areas are places you might find a ground wire connection (no longer
code).

-- Bobby G. "




Someone said 'not required by code' or something similar. That is what

they meant. They are wrong.



"no longer code" was the term used. Wes is trying to morph
that into no longer required by code, which clearly doesn't
make any sense in the context it was orginally used. And even if you
morph it into that, it's still wrong. New installation of
the "circuit box" for example, with current code would
*requre* ground/bond wires
running from it to an incoming metal water service, metal
water pipes in the house, etc.

And again, Robert later stated that he meant that the
OP should just go look for any ground attachments so he
can point them out to the electrician. Had he said that,
I would have had no problem with it, even though
it seems unlikely the OP would know what a ground connection
looks like. But the "no longer
code part is just incorrect and also to just say go
look for all these grounds, no longer code, I think
leaves a newbie with the impression that just
their presence could be the reason for his shock problem.



Wasn't there a recent thread almost identical to this branch between

trader and NN - same erroneous statements being made and corrected?

Yes, it's in this thread. The main issue there was the claim
being made that a metal water service can no longer be used
as a ground for new work. It can be one of the grounding electrodes, but
it can't be the only grounding electrode. I think that one
was settled.

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:22:25 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-29-2013, 16:05, bud-- wrote:

On 10/29/2013 11:58 AM, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 10-29-2013, 09:30, bud-- wrote:

On 10/28/2013 9:24 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 10-28-2013, 23:01, bud-- wrote:



"No longer code" is "wrong".



Other posts made it clear he meant not required by code.

Don't crucify him for failure to edit extensively.

That would violate Usenet tradition.



"Not required by code" is "wrong".



You're probably write. So refute what he meant, not what he didn't.



Find me the original quote. Doesn't appear to be in-line back.



He posted (without the quote marks) "(not code)" which is very

ambiguous. Since then, even though he has more clearly explained what

he meant (which you say is wrong), numerous posts have killed the horse

about him allegedly saying prohibited.



In my universe, when someone says "XYZ is no longer code" it can
only mean that the code has been updated so that XYZ is no longer
allowed per code for new work. That is how it's been used here
in AHR in every case
that I can recall. At least by anyone who knows what they are
talking about. I guess it would be better if it was actually
stated as "XYZ is no longer code for new work".

But however you morph it, the statement that ground wires,
for example, from the panel to metal water service pipes,
house metal piping system is "no longer code" is just wrong.
Even if you want to try to claim he meant *required*, it's
still wrong.

On 10/29/2013 11:58 AM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-29-2013, 09:30, bud-- wrote:
On 10/28/2013 9:24 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-28-2013, 23:01, bud-- wrote:

"No longer code" is "wrong".

Other posts made it clear he meant not required by code.
Don't crucify him for failure to edit extensively.
That would violate Usenet tradition.

"Not required by code" is "wrong".

You're probably write. So refute what he meant, not what he didn't.

Find me the original quote. Doesn't appear to be in-line back.

Someone said 'not required by code' or something similar. That is what
they meant. They are wrong.

Wasn't there a recent thread almost identical to this branch between
trader and NN - same erroneous statements being made and corrected?

On 10-29-2013, 15:38, wrote:
In my universe, when someone says "XYZ is no longer code" it can

In the Usenet universe, it is indeed traditional to argue your favorite
meaning of a word or phrase regardless of the speaker's later clarification.

But however you morph it, the statement that ground wires,
for example, from the panel to metal water service pipes,
house metal piping system is "no longer code" is just wrong.

Fine. Argue that, instead of accusing him of saying something
he didn't say and claiming that he meant something he specifically denied.

Even if you want to try to claim he meant*required*, it's
still wrong.

I'm not the one anxious to "claim" things, but I READ what he said he meant.

In my universe, we try to understand people before we correct them.

--
Wes Groleau

A UNIX signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent
of a black velvet clown painting. It's a rectangle of carets
surrounding a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like
Heinlein or Dr. Who.
€” Chris Maeda
Ha, ha, Dr. ..... Who's Chris Maeda?
€” Wes Groleau

On 10-29-2013, 15:29, wrote:
"no longer code" was the term used. Wes is trying to morph
that into no longer required by code, which clearly doesn't
make any sense in the context it was orginally used. And even if you

I'm not trying to morph anything. He POSTED that is what he meant.

AND, though I certainly wouldn't say it that way, I find it easy to
recognize that as a possible meaning.

I recognize that promoting discussion instead of dispute on Usenet is
futile, but I just can't help myself.

--
Don Quijote

Pat's Polemics
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 5:32:27 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-29-2013, 15:38, wrote:

In my universe, when someone says "XYZ is no longer code" it can



In the Usenet universe, it is indeed traditional to argue your favorite

meaning of a word or phrase regardless of the speaker's later clarification.



But however you morph it, the statement that ground wires,

for example, from the panel to metal water service pipes,

house metal piping system is "no longer code" is just wrong.



Fine. Argue that, instead of accusing him of saying something

he didn't say and claiming that he meant something he specifically denied.



Good grief. Did you follow the thread? The excerpts
I provided in the last few posts of what he said after?
He didnt'd deny that he meant it was no longer code.
He agressively affirmed that is what he meant.

Here it is yet again:

Robert:

"At least Philo knew I was specifically talking about ground wire connections
made to water pipes at random places in the house. That's very clear to
anyone but a raging flamer like you. Is that still code in NJ? I doubt it.
They stopped approving such grounding methods *precisely* because of what's
happened in Fred's case. "

(note with regard to the above, that he specifically listed the
panel in his list of places to look for grounds to water pipes
that are "no longer code", then he tried to change it to random
places)

"It's clear why grounding to water pipes isn't the great idea it used to be
even though in many old houses (like mine) you'll still find plenty of
clamps attached to supply lines. The mains could be PVC, repairs in the
house, even if it has copper plumbing could be plastic, etc. "

For the record, it's not only permissible to ground the panel
to the incoming water service, ie it's one of the listed
grounding electrodes, it's such a great idea, it's required. And the
metal water pipe system of the house has to be bonded/grounded to
the panel as well. You tried to claim he meant it's just
*not required*, so you obviously don't know what you're talking
about either, because that is still equally as wrong. There
will be ground wires running from the panel to metal water
pipes in new construction, following current code, today.



Even if you want to try to claim he meant*required*, it's

still wrong.



I'm not the one anxious to "claim" things, but I READ what he said he meant.



Apparently you are, because he you are defending his incorrect statements.
He clearly said he meant two things:

1 - It is in fact no longer code to use water pipes as a ground
for the panel, etc.

2 - That he meant the OP should just go look for where
the cable, phone, panel, etc are grounded.

I don't have a problem with the later. #1 is still wrong.



In my universe, we try to understand people before we correct them.



Yes, let's accept untrue BS and just all get along, right?

On 10-29-2013, 18:02, wrote:
Good grief. Did you follow the thread? The excerpts

Since you are more interested in argument than communication, I'm going
elsewhere.

--
Wes Groleau

After the christening of his baby brother in church, Jason sobbed
all the way home in the back seat of the car. His father asked him
three times what was wrong. Finally, the boy replied, €œThat preacher
said he wanted us brought up in a Christian home, and I wanted to
stay with you guys."

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 5:35:15 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-29-2013, 15:29, wrote:

"no longer code" was the term used. Wes is trying to morph

that into no longer required by code, which clearly doesn't

make any sense in the context it was orginally used. And even if you



I'm not trying to morph anything. He POSTED that is what he meant.


Of course you're morphing. Even you tried to claimn that
what he posted was unclear. Now it's suddenly what he
meant. You tried to tell Bud and me that
what he meant was *no longer required by code". What he posted
is clear and it;s clearly wrong.

And your attempt to morph what he posted into *required* shows
that you don't know what you're talking about either, because
to have the incoming water service and the house metal pipe
system grounded/bonded is *required*.






AND, though I certainly wouldn't say it that way, I find it easy to

recognize that as a possible meaning.



What exactly is a "possible meaning" If it;s the *no longer required*
morphing nonsense, that is wrong too as Bud and I have told you
now ten times.



I recognize that promoting discussion instead of dispute on Usenet is

futile, but I just can't help myself.



Yes some come up with BS about code and we're just supposed
to discuss it, as if Robert who isn't an EE or electrician,
opinion is as qualifed as Bud, me, RBM, etc. If you want
to continue this, try citing the NEC.

On 10-29-2013, 18:11, wrote:
Of course you're morphing. Even you tried to claimn that
what he posted was unclear. Now it's suddenly what he

It was. "not code" is VERY vague.

meant. You tried to tell Bud and me that
what he meant was *no longer required by code". What he posted

He SAID that's what he meant.

is clear and it;s clearly wrong.

And your attempt to morph what he posted into *required* shows
that you don't know what you're talking about either, because

He SAID that's what he meant. I NEVER claimed he was correct.

--
Wes Groleau

If you put garbage in a computer nothing comes out but garbage.
But this garbage, having passed through a very expensive machine,
is somehow ennobled and none dare criticize it.

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:20:09 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 10/28/2013 7:22 PM, wrote:
Stop and think about it Stormy - even if that WERE the case, the
water system is SUPPOSED to be grounded - and if it is properly
rounded there is no potential difference between the water system and
ground - and therefore no tingle or shock.


Stop and think about it, Clare. If the OP wishes not to be
shocked, s/he ought to FIND the problem. As such, looking for
PROBLEMS like a bad NEUTRAL would help FIND and SOLVE the
problem. Improving the ground will NOT do much about the
SOURCE of the electricity.
Please explain how a bad neutral is going to make the ground
float. I'm real curious how you are going to explain that. Not saying
it's impossible - but please enlighten us. Or are you saying an open
neutral between the panel and the street??

Goal post move, noted. Is that the best you can do?
Didn't move the post. IF the water pipe is grounded properly, even an
OPEN neutral at the pole will not make the pipe live. Impossible.
Not bonding the neutral to ground can make the NEUTRAL higher than
ground, which can give you a shock when touching the "grounded"
chassis of an appliance and a "real" ground at the same time. That's
the essence of "phantom voltage" problems that plagued rural america a
few decades ago - where they used "ground return" (single wire
distribution 135 volt AC IIRC)

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 7:30:01 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-29-2013, 18:11, wrote:

Of course you're morphing. Even you tried to claimn that

what he posted was unclear. Now it's suddenly what he



It was. "not code" is VERY vague.



BS. Can you read? I've provided the exact initial quote
several times now, and the words were "no longer code".
That is not vague.



meant. You tried to tell Bud and me that

what he meant was *no longer required by code". What he posted



He SAID that's what he meant.



Now, again you're wrong. It was "no longer code" in the
original post. AFAIK, he never said "no longer required by code"
If he did, just provide the cite. Again I provided
what he did post:

"If you want to do something before help arrives, I might *look* (but not
touch) for any clamps with wires that are attached to your water supply
lines. Incoming phone terminals, CATV lines, the circuit box area and the
furnace areas are places you might find a ground wire connection (no longer
code).
-- Bobby G. "

And then he affirmed that was what he meant by this:

Robert:
""At least Philo knew I was specifically talking about ground wire connections
made to water pipes at random places in the house. That's very clear to
anyone but a raging flamer like you. Is that still code in NJ? I doubt it.
They stopped approving such grounding methods *precisely* because of what's
happened in Fred's case. "

(note with regard to the above, that he specifically listed the
panel in his list of places to look for grounds to water pipes
that are "no longer code", then he tried to change it to random
places)

Robert:
"It's clear why grounding to water pipes isn't the great idea it used to be
even though in many old houses (like mine) you'll still find plenty of
clamps attached to supply lines. The mains could be PVC, repairs in the
house, even if it has copper plumbing could be plastic, etc. "


Under current code, having ground/bond wires from the panel
to the metal water service and to the metal water pipes of
the house itself if the service is plastic is *required* . If
it isn't the great idea it used to be, why does current NEC
require it?


It would be helpful if you addressed the facts here of the
whole statements in context instead of talking about one alleged
word here and there.



is clear and it;s clearly wrong.



And your attempt to morph what he posted into *required* shows

that you don't know what you're talking about either, because



He SAID that's what he meant. I NEVER claimed he was correct.



1 - Show us where he said that "not required by code is what he
meant. Where he used the word, required. Maybe I missed it,
but I don't believe so. And even if he did, as Bud and I have
stated, it's still wrong.

2 - If you're not claiming he is correct, what the hell are
you claiming? That he was wrong twice?

On 10/29/2013 1:29 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:07:01 PM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
On 10/29/2013 11:58 AM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-29-2013, 09:30, bud-- wrote:
On 10/28/2013 9:24 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-28-2013, 23:01, bud-- wrote:

"No longer code" is "wrong".

Other posts made it clear he meant not required by code.
Don't crucify him for failure to edit extensively.
That would violate Usenet tradition.

"Not required by code" is "wrong".

You're probably write. So refute what he meant, not what he didn't.

Find me the original quote. Doesn't appear to be in-line back.

Here it is:

"
If you want to do something before help arrives, I might *look* (but not
touch) for any clamps with wires that are attached to your water supply
lines. Incoming phone terminals, CATV lines, the circuit box area and the
furnace areas are places you might find a ground wire connection (no longer
code).

-- Bobby G. "

Geez, the source. That helps.

If we are not talking about connecting the water pipe as an earthing
electrode....

You used to be able to connect entry protectors and other grounds (like
adding a ground to a receptacle in an ungrounded circuit) anywhere on
the water pipe. That is no longer code, but you can make the same
connections withing 5 ft of the entry of the pipe to the house.
(Connection can also be made a number of other spots.)

=========================

Wasn't there a recent thread almost identical to this branch between
trader and NN - same erroneous statements being made and corrected?

Yes, it's in this thread.

I remember about the same thing concerning using a water pipe as an
earthing electrode maybe a couple months ago.

The main issue there was the claim
being made that a metal water service can no longer be used
as a ground for new work. It can be one of the grounding electrodes, but
it can't be the only grounding electrode. I think that one
was settled.

"Can" is wrong. It *must* be one of the earthing electrodes. It is one
of the required electrodes, if present (10 ft...). Another required
electrode is a "concrete encased electrode" (usually called a Ufer
ground) if there is a concrete footing or foundation.

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:05:45 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
On 10/29/2013 1:29 PM, wrote:

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:07:01 PM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:

On 10/29/2013 11:58 AM, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 10-29-2013, 09:30, bud-- wrote:

On 10/28/2013 9:24 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 10-28-2013, 23:01, bud-- wrote:



"No longer code" is "wrong".



Other posts made it clear he meant not required by code.

Don't crucify him for failure to edit extensively.

That would violate Usenet tradition.



"Not required by code" is "wrong".



You're probably write. So refute what he meant, not what he didn't.



Find me the original quote. Doesn't appear to be in-line back.



Here it is:



"

If you want to do something before help arrives, I might *look* (but not

touch) for any clamps with wires that are attached to your water supply

lines. Incoming phone terminals, CATV lines, the circuit box area and the

furnace areas are places you might find a ground wire connection (no longer

code).



-- Bobby G. "



Geez, the source. That helps.

Yes and note who provided it, me not Wes.





If we are not talking about connecting the water pipe as an earthing

electrode....



In the quote he listed the circuit box as one place to look for a
ground wire connected to a water pipe. That would include
a wire connected from the panel to the water pipe
as an earthing electrode. OP goes looking around the panel,
sees it, and per the statement made thinks "Oh, that's no longer code"
Or OP goes looking sees the wire from the panel clamped to
the metal water pipes of the house and thinks "Oh, that's
no longer code". As we agree, both are current code.




You used to be able to connect entry protectors and other grounds (like

adding a ground to a receptacle in an ungrounded circuit) anywhere on

the water pipe. That is no longer code, but you can make the same

connections withing 5 ft of the entry of the pipe to the house.

Agreed, he was wrong on that point too.

On 10/30/2013 11:13 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:05:45 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:


You used to be able to connect entry protectors and other grounds (like

adding a ground to a receptacle in an ungrounded circuit) anywhere on

the water pipe. That is no longer code, but you can make the same

connections withing 5 ft of the entry of the pipe to the house.

Agreed, he was wrong on that point too.


That's kind of what I envision may have happened assuming the OP has an
old house, combined with a poor ground for the water pipes and an
appliance with a shorted current carrying conductor to case ground.

I kinda wish he'd check back in and let us know what he found, because
it's an interesting problem (in a scary sort of way) and would be nice
to see who guessed right.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Fred wrote:
How can I be getting shocked off my faucet? This happens only in my
bathroom & laundry tub downstairs. It's not all the time, but it's a
good enough zap to make you jump.

Okay Fred, it's Wednesday, -- electrician day. Did he/she show up? What
was the outcome?

"TomR" wrote in message
...
Fred wrote:
How can I be getting shocked off my faucet? This happens only in my
bathroom & laundry tub downstairs. It's not all the time, but it's a
good enough zap to make you jump.

Okay Fred, it's Wednesday, -- electrician day. Did he/she show up? What
was the outcome?

Yes they showed up. But, it was after the fire department was here. I
finally got electric back after almost 20 hrs without it.

Got some burnt siding by the outside spigot. Was fortunate enough to have
an alert neighbor who awakened us, then called the fire department.

The fire chief did his investigation. I know I had to get a new box
downstairs. Thankfully my deductible is only $250, and we are alive.

Ok - You must be busy, but what caused the fire, and the outside spigot involvement??? You have many folks waiting to hear.

On 10/30/2013 08:32 PM, Fred wrote:
"TomR" wrote in message
...
Fred wrote:
How can I be getting shocked off my faucet? This happens only in my
bathroom & laundry tub downstairs. It's not all the time, but it's a
good enough zap to make you jump.

Okay Fred, it's Wednesday, -- electrician day. Did he/she show up? What
was the outcome?

Yes they showed up. But, it was after the fire department was here. I
finally got electric back after almost 20 hrs without it.

Got some burnt siding by the outside spigot. Was fortunate enough to have
an alert neighbor who awakened us, then called the fire department.

The fire chief did his investigation. I know I had to get a new box
downstairs. Thankfully my deductible is only $250, and we are alive.


yikes! I assume this was related to the problem you originally posted
about? Hope everything gets fixed up OK and glad to hear that you're
all right. Please do tell us what the issue was when you have a chance.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 10/30/2013 8:32 PM, Fred wrote:
Okay Fred, it's Wednesday, -- electrician day. Did he/she show up? What
was the outcome?

Yes they showed up. But, it was after the fire department was here. I
finally got electric back after almost 20 hrs without it.

Got some burnt siding by the outside spigot. Was fortunate enough to have
an alert neighbor who awakened us, then called the fire department.

The fire chief did his investigation. I know I had to get a new box
downstairs. Thankfully my deductible is only $250, and we are alive.

You for real, Fred? We all knew it was serious,
but, man, that's beyond serious.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 10/31/2013 7:21 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
Yes they showed up. But, it was after the fire department was here. I
finally got electric back after almost 20 hrs without it.

Got some burnt siding by the outside spigot. Was fortunate enough to have
an alert neighbor who awakened us, then called the fire department.

The fire chief did his investigation. I know I had to get a new box
downstairs. Thankfully my deductible is only $250, and we are alive.


yikes! I assume this was related to the problem you originally posted
about? Hope everything gets fixed up OK and glad to hear that you're
all right. Please do tell us what the issue was when you have a chance.

nate

I'm also wondering what was the problem.
that sounds totally serious.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

Fred wrote:
"TomR" wrote in message
...
Fred wrote:
How can I be getting shocked off my faucet? This happens only in my
bathroom & laundry tub downstairs. It's not all the time, but it's
a good enough zap to make you jump.

Okay Fred, it's Wednesday, -- electrician day. Did he/she show up? What
was the outcome?

Yes they showed up. But, it was after the fire department was here. I
finally got electric back after almost 20 hrs without it.

Got some burnt siding by the outside spigot. Was fortunate enough to
have an alert neighbor who awakened us, then called the fire
department.
The fire chief did his investigation. I know I had to get a new box
downstairs. Thankfully my deductible is only $250, and we are alive.

So, what was the problem? What did the electricians say? What did the fire
chief say?

On 10/30/2013 07:32 PM, Fred wrote:
"TomR" wrote in message
...
Fred wrote:
How can I be getting shocked off my faucet? This happens only in my
bathroom & laundry tub downstairs. It's not all the time, but it's a
good enough zap to make you jump.

Okay Fred, it's Wednesday, -- electrician day. Did he/she show up? What
was the outcome?

Yes they showed up. But, it was after the fire department was here. I
finally got electric back after almost 20 hrs without it.

Got some burnt siding by the outside spigot. Was fortunate enough to have
an alert neighbor who awakened us, then called the fire department.

The fire chief did his investigation. I know I had to get a new box
downstairs. Thankfully my deductible is only $250, and we are alive.







Glad you are OK but for crying out loud nearly everyone here told you it
was SERIOUS and to get it checked IMMEDIATELY. Because you chose to
ignore the advice you got you could have ended up fried.

Just because your input box was faulty and you got it replaced does not
mean all your problems are solved. You still more than likely have an
electrical ground attached somewhere to an ungrounded water pipe.

You need to get that resolved or some day you may get electrocuted.

It could be due to PCV piping having been put in at some point.

Additionally if you live in a dry , sandy area such as Texas it is very
common for ground rods to have no grounding capability. They often need
to be longer than the typical 3 or 6 foot rod...or else have water
poured on them periodically.



--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS85K...ature=youtu.be

On Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:19:26 AM UTC-4, philo* wrote:
On 10/30/2013 07:32 PM, Fred wrote:

"TomR" wrote in message

...

Fred wrote:

How can I be getting shocked off my faucet? This happens only in my

bathroom & laundry tub downstairs. It's not all the time, but it's a

good enough zap to make you jump.



Okay Fred, it's Wednesday, -- electrician day. Did he/she show up? What

was the outcome?



Yes they showed up. But, it was after the fire department was here. I

finally got electric back after almost 20 hrs without it.



Got some burnt siding by the outside spigot. Was fortunate enough to have

an alert neighbor who awakened us, then called the fire department.



The fire chief did his investigation. I know I had to get a new box

downstairs. Thankfully my deductible is only $250, and we are alive.















Glad you are OK but for crying out loud nearly everyone here told you it

was SERIOUS and to get it checked IMMEDIATELY. Because you chose to

ignore the advice you got you could have ended up fried.



Just because your input box was faulty and you got it replaced does not

mean all your problems are solved. You still more than likely have an

electrical ground attached somewhere to an ungrounded water pipe.



You need to get that resolved or some day you may get electrocuted.



It could be due to PCV piping having been put in at some point.



Additionally if you live in a dry , sandy area such as Texas it is very

common for ground rods to have no grounding capability. They often need

to be longer than the typical 3 or 6 foot rod...or else have water

poured on them periodically.





Anyone else still wondering if this original post is real or
someone is just trolling?

On 10/31/2013 10:25 AM, wrote:


Additionally if you live in a dry , sandy area such as Texas it is very

common for ground rods to have no grounding capability. They often need

to be longer than the typical 3 or 6 foot rod...or else have water

poured on them periodically.





Anyone else still wondering if this original post is real or
someone is just trolling?




Because he ignored all advice I did suspect him of being a troll.

OTOH: Since this is a potentially life-threatening siutation I've
decided to err on the side of caution.


When someone commits suicide in most situations close friends say they
heard the person mention it but never took them seriously.

On 10/31/2013 11:25 AM, wrote:
The fire chief did his investigation. I know I had to get a new box
downstairs. Thankfully my deductible is only $250, and we are alive.

You need to get that resolved or some day you may get electrocuted.

Anyone else still wondering if this original post is real or
someone is just trolling?

Well, we haven't heard what was the problem.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 10/30/2013 9:13 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:05:45 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
On 10/29/2013 1:29 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:07:01 PM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
On 10/29/2013 11:58 AM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-29-2013, 09:30, bud-- wrote:
On 10/28/2013 9:24 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-28-2013, 23:01, bud-- wrote:

"No longer code" is "wrong".

Other posts made it clear he meant not required by code.
Don't crucify him for failure to edit extensively.
That would violate Usenet tradition.

"Not required by code" is "wrong".

You're probably write. So refute what he meant, not what he didn't.

Find me the original quote. Doesn't appear to be in-line back.

Here it is:

"
If you want to do something before help arrives, I might *look* (but not
touch) for any clamps with wires that are attached to your water supply
lines. Incoming phone terminals, CATV lines, the circuit box area and the
furnace areas are places you might find a ground wire connection (no longer
code).

-- Bobby G. "

Geez, the source. That helps.

Yes and note who provided it, me not Wes.

I did notice. It really helps to have the relevant source quoted.


If we are not talking about connecting the water pipe as an earthing
electrode....

In the quote he listed the circuit box as one place to look for a
ground wire connected to a water pipe. That would include
a wire connected from the panel to the water pipe
as an earthing electrode.

Might.
My service is connected to the water pipe within 5 ft of its entrance.
There was an old water pipe connection for a telephone entry protector
that was nowhere near the water pipe entry. But it was near the service
panel.

OP goes looking around the panel,
sees it, and per the statement made thinks "Oh, that's no longer code"
Or OP goes looking sees the wire from the panel clamped to
the metal water pipes of the house and thinks "Oh, that's
no longer code". As we agree, both are current code.

You used to be able to connect entry protectors and other grounds (like
adding a ground to a receptacle in an ungrounded circuit) anywhere on
the water pipe. That is no longer code, but you can make the same
connections withing 5 ft of the entry of the pipe to the house.

Agreed, he was wrong on that point too.

I think it mostly supports the quote above. Around here there probably
aren't many connections within 5 ft of the water pipe entrance other
than power grounding electrode connections. It was common practice (and
code compliant then) to connect the telephone entry protector to the
nearest water pipe. I think a lot of the early cable installs also hit
the nearest water pipe.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:25:57 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:19:26 AM UTC-4, philo* wrote:
On 10/30/2013 07:32 PM, Fred wrote:

[Snip}


Anyone else still wondering if this original post is real or
someone is just trolling?

Almost from the beginning... when some tempers started to flare.

"Gordon Shumway" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:25:57 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:19:26 AM UTC-4, philo wrote:
On 10/30/2013 07:32 PM, Fred wrote:

[Snip}


Anyone else still wondering if this original post is real or
someone is just trolling?

Almost from the beginning... when some tempers started to flare.

Happy Halloween!

On 10/31/13 6:35 PM, Fred wrote:

Happy Halloween!

Chocolate dipped onion on a stick.